Do not crash in a Ford Mustang

[firiki]

Thank you for the replies. I wasn't dissing RWD vehicles, besides I know very little on them. My question was more about the way they handle when accelerating or turning which can give unexperienced drivers trouble.

I had a quick read through RWD pros and cons in Wikipedia -I'll need to repeat that read. I guess it all depends on intended use. For my needs, I think I'd like a FWD with optional 4WD vehicle (or maybe some Mercedes-Benz G-Class model )

[dks]

..... (or maybe some Mercedes-Benz G-Class model)

join the army

[firiki]

..... (or maybe some Mercedes-Benz G-Class model)

join the army

I thought they are now available to privates too?

[dks]

yes, but the Greek army uses a lot of them, and you will be able to drive one for free

[Gareth]

yes, but the Greek army uses a lot of them, and you will be able to drive one for free

Not just for free, you'll even get paid for it.

[dks]

even better!

[Gareth]

Thank you for the replies. I wasn't dissing RWD vehicles, besides I know very little on them. My question was more about the way they handle when accelerating or turning which can give unexperienced drivers trouble.

I had a quick read through RWD pros and cons in Wikipedia -I'll need to repeat that read. I guess it all depends on intended use. For my needs, I think I'd like a FWD with optional 4WD vehicle (or maybe some Mercedes-Benz G-Class model )

That's the type of system you'll find in the Renault/Nissan/Dacia family of 4WD. 

[dks]

most AWD vehicles, with the exception of the sporty brands run this similar system. The sporty brands, e.g. Jaguar, will have a RWD to 4WD system

[Grant Lamontagne]

Here's a bit from Top Gear detailing the difference between oversteer and understeer, when he's actually talking about the difference between FWD and RWD.

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=pOdM-kVfd58

Def

[bftx]

The Mustang scores better than both the Challenger and Camaro in US crash tests.  Also, note the cabin does not crunch under force.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Don Pablo]

The Mustang scores better than both the Challenger and Camaro in US crash tests.  Also, note the cabin does not crunch under force.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

My conclusion: don't crash in a sports or muscle car, and by extension,  don't buy one. 

[Grant Lamontagne]

That's why I like trucks.  More mass= better protection.

Def

[dks]

Older trucks were pretty bad. You were fine in head on collisions, but the body on frame construction usually meant that the body, the cabin where you are sitting in,was very soft and if they rolled over or were hit above the ladder frame they crampled.
Have a look at a mercedes w123 crash test and you will realise that it was possible to built safe cars even in the 1970s. Some manufacturers just do not care about the passenger's safety, designing cars for those that like to drive motorbikes without helmets.

[gregozedobe]

That's why I like trucks.  More mass= better protection.

Sorry, that is totally wrong when talking about injuries to occupants in a serious crash..

More mass (+ velocity) = more kinetic energy to be dissipated and absorbed

In a crash between a lighter and a heavier vehicle the heavier one will push the lighter one more, and older truck designs may appear to have less external damage than a more modern, easier-to-crumple car, but the choice in this example is stark: 

You can have a vehicle that is designed to crumple and protect its occupants, or you you can have one hat is externally more rigid and the soft bodies of the occupants then get to absorb a lot more force in a serious impact.  Personally I prefer for my vehicle to sacrifice itself and crumple more and preserve my body in the state it's maker intended, and if repairs to my vehicle cost more so be it.

[dks]

One of the biggest complaints of oldtimers is that new cars do not have the thicker steel of older ones, crumpling easier. You can not sit in the roof of newer cars.
Again, as noted, the more impact absorbed by the car, the less you will have to absorb. The only really solid part in newer cars is the cabin, that cockoons the passengers.

[moonweasel]

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2016/04/most-trucks-do-poorly-in-small-overlap-crash-test.html

[Grant Lamontagne]

That's why I like trucks.  More mass= better protection.

Sorry, that is totally wrong when talking about injuries to occupants in a serious crash..

More mass (+ velocity) = more kinetic energy to be dissipated and absorbed

In a crash between a lighter and a heavier vehicle the heavier one will push the lighter one more, and older truck designs may appear to have less external damage than a more modern, easier-to-crumple car, but the choice in this example is stark: 

You can have a vehicle that is designed to crumple and protect its occupants, or you you can have one hat is externally more rigid and the soft bodies of the occupants then get to absorb a lot more force in a serious impact.  Personally I prefer for my vehicle to sacrifice itself and crumple more and preserve my body in the state it's maker intended, and if repairs to my vehicle cost more so be it.

You are absolutely correct- for a head on style impact, however, if someone should hit me (as they often do) while trying to move into the lane I am currently occupying I would much rather have the mass to absorb the impact and resist (more or less) deviating from straight line travel to prevent going in the ditch or a much more catastrophic rollover.

Def

[gregozedobe]

....... if someone should hit me (as they often do) while trying to move into the lane I am currently occupying .......

Seriously ?  !!!!   I'm glad I don't drive in your area.  Occasionally I have to toot my horn to remind people there is someone already occupying the space they are moving into, but not very often.

[Grant Lamontagne]

I can't tell you the amount of people that don't do shoulder checks and try to pull into my lane while I'm using it.

I'd say it's because my Jeep is kind of camouflaged but they used to try and hit my yellow one too.

Def